[Waychel]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Waychel said: that they be allowed the right to marry I say: You are acting as if RIGHTS were negotiable, and "allowed" to begin with. Rights are inalienable, and whether or not the government chooses to recognize that right, will determine how many people from that particular group of people will respect and obey the "other laws" that are not infringing on their rights. All people have equal rights in this nation, and to deny gays the same "favoritism" as straight couples receive in the cases you speak of is unconstitutional, at best. I heard someone on here say you were a lawyer? What form of law if I may ask?

Please read my original post again.

The fact of the matter is that nobody is denying homosexuals the right to get married; we are only denying them federal recognition as a married couple.

America is a country of checks and balances; just as we have rights, we also have laws which regulate them. I fail to see why the issue of marriage should be any different, considering that it essentially comes down to issues of property. The only thing homosexuals are being denied throughout all of this is the federal recognition of their marriages, which won't be a right denied to them until it actually becomes a right. For that to happen, the legal definition of marriage must first be modified to include them.

This is not an issue of morality, religion or descrimination; it is an issue of purely legal context. Marriage as recognized by law ultimately comes down to one thing: the protections and interests awarded to both parties in the event of divorce. The moment that we introduce a change of genders or numbers to the legal definition of marriage is the moment that we begin to infringe upon, disown or abuse the protections currently awarded by marital law to heterosexual couples. I'm no legal expert, but one would think that this would mean the entire revision of marriage and divorce law as a whole. Most of these rights relate to the social roles played by couples within heterosexual relationships.

The multiple unions of Mormons and Islamics are not recognized by law. I see very few bleeding hearts crying over the supposed violation of their civil rights. IMO, this is not an issue posed entirely in the interest of civil rights, but in also furthering the pro-homosexual agenda. I also don't believe religion has any place in what should be, by my opinion, a purely legal debate (internationally; not here on these forums), but then again, I'm Atheist -- what do I know?

Also, before you say that marriage as recognized by law should not be regulated by law, consider this: if marriage had no definition and therefore no boundaries regarding it, then bigamy, incest and molestation would not only become legal, but also legally recognized -- and condoned -- by the law in regards to marriage.

BTW, I'm by no means a legal expert and I'm sorrie if I have given this impression, considering that it is an entirely false one. I'm just a little girl majoring in law, so you can take everything that I say with a grain of salt. =PpP As for my focus, I guess it would be estate planning. I currently work as a paralegal for a firm which handles everything from divorces (mainly in regards to issues of community property and transmutation of property) to living trusts and bankruptcies.